On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> wrote: > On 2012-02-16 09:07, zwu.ker...@gmail.com wrote: >> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> > > Please summarize in a bit more details what was broken. Should those bits be put in the message part of this part? or here?
> >> Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu <wu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> slirp/if.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++-- >> slirp/mbuf.c | 3 +-- >> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/slirp/if.c b/slirp/if.c >> index 8e0cac2..57350d5 100644 >> --- a/slirp/if.c >> +++ b/slirp/if.c >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ ifs_remque(struct mbuf *ifm) >> { >> ifm->ifs_prev->ifs_next = ifm->ifs_next; >> ifm->ifs_next->ifs_prev = ifm->ifs_prev; >> + ifs_init(ifm); >> } >> >> void >> @@ -154,7 +155,7 @@ if_start(Slirp *slirp) >> { >> uint64_t now = qemu_get_clock_ns(rt_clock); >> int requeued = 0; >> - struct mbuf *ifm, *ifqt; >> + struct mbuf *ifm, *ifqt, *ifm_next; >> >> DEBUG_CALL("if_start"); >> >> @@ -162,6 +163,8 @@ if_start(Slirp *slirp) >> return; /* Nothing to do */ >> >> again: >> + ifm_next = NULL; >> + >> /* check if we can really output */ >> if (!slirp_can_output(slirp->opaque)) >> return; >> @@ -190,6 +193,7 @@ if_start(Slirp *slirp) >> /* If there are more packets for this session, re-queue them */ >> if (ifm->ifs_next != /* ifm->ifs_prev != */ ifm) { >> insque(ifm->ifs_next, ifqt); >> + ifm_next = ifm->ifs_next; >> ifs_remque(ifm); >> } >> >> @@ -209,7 +213,18 @@ if_start(Slirp *slirp) >> m_free(ifm); >> } else { >> /* re-queue */ >> - insque(ifm, ifqt); >> + if (ifm_next) { >> + /*restore the original state of batchq*/ >> + remque(ifm_next); >> + insque(ifm, ifqt); >> + ifm_next->ifs_prev->ifs_next = ifm; >> + ifm->ifs_prev = ifm_next->ifs_prev; >> + ifm->ifs_next = ifm_next; >> + ifm_next->ifs_prev = ifm; >> + } else { >> + insque(ifm, ifqt); >> + } >> + >> requeued++; >> } >> } >> diff --git a/slirp/mbuf.c b/slirp/mbuf.c >> index c699c75..f429c0a 100644 >> --- a/slirp/mbuf.c >> +++ b/slirp/mbuf.c >> @@ -68,8 +68,7 @@ m_get(Slirp *slirp) >> m->m_size = SLIRP_MSIZE - offsetof(struct mbuf, m_dat); >> m->m_data = m->m_dat; >> m->m_len = 0; >> - m->m_nextpkt = NULL; >> - m->m_prevpkt = NULL; >> + ifs_init(m); >> m->arp_requested = false; >> m->expiration_date = (uint64_t)-1; >> end_error: > > Wondering now: Is this hunk required or a cleanup? The former. I think that the pointer of one raw mbuf which are used to link the packets for the same session should default to itself, not NULL. > > Jan > -- Regards, Zhi Yong Wu